Preview:

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: STEVEN KNECHT Vonderheide & Knecht, P.C. Lafayette, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: CHARLES R. DIEBLE Gambs, Mucker, & Bauman Lafayette, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
IN THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION OF THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP OF T.M.W.W. , minor child BRADLEY EVERETT WOOTEN, natural father BRADLEY EVERETT WOOTEN, Appellant, vs. TIPPECANOE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES, Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 79A02-0602-JV-156

APPEAL FROM THE TIPPECANOE SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Diana LaViolette, Special Judge Cause No. 79D03-0508-JT-85

November 3, 2006 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION RILEY, Judge

STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant-Respondent, Bradley Everett Wooten (Father), appeals the trial court's involuntary termination of his parental rights to his minor child, T.W. We affirm. ISSUE Father raises three issues on appeal, which we consolidate and restate as the following single issue: Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's termination of Father's parental rights to T.W. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On December 28, 2005, the trial court entered the following Order, in pertinent part, terminating the parent-child relationship of Father and T.W.: 1. [Father] is the [biological parent of T.W.], born September 29, 1999. Destiny Wooten [(Mother)] is the mother of T.W. and a separate petition to terminate the parent-child relationship between Mother and T.W. is pending. These parents also had another child that was born of their marriage, [S.W.]. 2. Tippecanoe County Department of Child Services [(TCDCS)], became involved with this family during January of 2004. At that time, T.W. had extensive bruising of unexplained origin. During the investigation, Father did not cooperate and could not provide an explanation for the bruising. Child Protective Services [(CPS)] substantiated [a] lack of supervision against Father and referrals for services were made. [Mother and Father] failed to complete the recommended services. [] 3. In April of 2004, [CPS] received additional reports regarding this family, including a report that T.W. sustained injuries during a physical tug of war between Mother and Father. Father admitted his fault in this altercation during the trial. [CPS] substantiated physical abuse and life/health endangerment against both parents at that time. After this investigation, the parents agreed that T.W. would live with Father[,] S.W. remained with Mother. []

4. In June and August of 2004, [CPS] received reports that T.W. was touched inappropriately by Mother's boyfriend during visits with Mother. Sexual abuse of T.W. was substantiated against Mother's boyfriend. Mother did not believe the allegations and continued her relationship with her boyfriend. An emergency modification of custody was granted in the divorce proceeding on August 13, 2004[,] and both T.W. and S.W. went to live with Father and his girlfriend, Jessica Sargent [(Sargent)]. All visits with Mother were suspended. A Guardian Ad Litem, Faith Norton [(Norton)], was appointed. [] 5. On September 15, 2004, S.W. was admitted to Methodist Hospital [in Indianapolis, Indiana] in critical condition as a result of non-accidental trauma that she sustained while in the care of Father's girlfriend, [Sargent]. Protective custody was taken of T.W. and S.W. on September 16, 2004[,] and T.W. was placed in foster care. [] 6. Father admitted that his girlfriend was caring for S.W. at the time of her injuries and that she shook S.W. Father claims that it was an attempt to revive S.W. after she was found unconscious. Father admitted that doctors did not find this possible. At the time that T.W. was removed from Father's care, [Sargent] had two daughters that lived with them. Her daughters were removed from her care and placed in foster care through a separate [Child in Need of Services (CHINS)] proceeding. Her daughters remain in foster care. 7. Father's girlfriend, [Sargent], has charges pending against her for Neglect of a Dependent (B Felony) and Battery (B Felony) based on the injuries sustained by S.W. Dr. Laskey examined S.W. and found that she had sustained a spinal cord injury and bleeding around the brain and eyes. S.W. remained alive at that time, but she was paralyzed and had little brain activity. She was expected to die as a result of her injuries. 8. T.W. was placed in relative foster care on September 16, 2004, and has remained there since that time. On October 20, 2004, T.W. and S.W. were found to be CHINS based on both parents admitting the allegations in the CHINS petition. Father was ordered to participate in services, including psychological evaluation, individual counseling, family counseling with T.W.'s psychologist, visitation with the children, parenting classes, [Sexual Abuse Family Treatment Intervention Program (SAFTIP)], and anger management.

3

9. S.W. remained in critical care and died as a result of her injuries on December 6, 2004. [Norton], the GAL, testified that S.W. died alone as neither of her parents were visiting her regularly. 10. [Norton], the GAL, testified regarding her involvement with this family and her observations of Father while his child remained in critical care. She testified that Father failed to participate in medical decisions regarding his daughter and that he failed to visit his daughter in the hospital more than a few times. At the conclusion of her investigation, [Norton] concluded as follows: "[N]either parent was in a position to provide minimally safe care to a child. Neither parent had demonstrated the ability or willingness to make their children first priority. Both parents exhibited self-centered behavior with regard to their children. Both parents refused to protect their children despite prior knowledge of substantiated neglect/abuse or criminal action against their respective significant others. Neither parent appeared to understand the seriousness of their situation . . . Without even considering stability issues such as housing, employment, income, and transportation, there were grave concerns regarding the placement of any child with any of these parents." [] 11. The relationship between Mother and Father was volatile and abusive. Father testified that he "restrained" Mother a lot and that he shoved her a couple of times. Father also stated in his Rapid Assessment that Mother was physically and verbally abusive to him. [] 12. Mother has a history of filing for protective orders against Father and his girlfriend[, Sargent]. In these petitions for protective orders, Mother alleges that Father and his girlfriend stalked her, called her in a harassing manner, and threatened to kill her. [] 13. Father admits that he has not had stable housing for several years. Father testified that he owes $3000 in back rent for his current apartment. Father also admitted during his testimony that he has been evicted from every apartment in which he has lived. 14. Father also has a sporadic work history. He testified that he is currently unemployed. Other than a one month temporary job, Father has been unemployed since November of 2004. He worked as a Certified Nursing Assistant for several months at a time in various facilities prior to that time. [His] longest period of employment was one year, and he was asked to resign from that job because of allegations that he mentally abused a patient. Father stated during his Rapid Assessment that he was
4

not good at keeping a job because he did not like "taking a lot of crap off of people." [] 15. Father failed to complete the recommended services to address the issues of anger management and his relationship with [Sargent]. Father missed and cancelled individual therapy appointments. Father indicated to his therapist, Peter Des[M]angles [(DesMangles)], that he had a difficult time believing that [Sargent] was responsible for the death of [S.W.], but that he understood that staying with [Sargent] would hurt his chances of reunification with [T.W.]. Father's therapist, [DesMangles], concluded that Father failed to demonstrate a need or desire to change his current patterns of behavior. As a result, continued counseling with Father would be ineffective. [] 16. Father's inability to provide a minimally safe home for T.W. continues as he remains in the same home with [Sargent]. Even though Father was ordered by the [c]ourt to establish separate housing, he failed to do this by the date of the termination trial. Father stated that he would never leave his girlfriend. Father expressed a belief that if he leaves his girlfriend that it will give [CPS] and others "more ammunition" to arrest his girlfriend. [] 17. Father testified that he learned in parenting class that he needs "to protect his child over anybody." However, Father states that he refuses to choose between his girlfriend and his son. Father admitted that he was told that T.W. would not be returned to his care if he continued to reside with his girlfriend since she posed a threat to T.W.'s safety. Despite the death of S.W. caused by [Sargent], Father testified that he did not believe that [Sargent] posed a threat to T.W. and that he will never believe that she harmed S.W. While T.W. remained in foster care, Father continued to live with his girlfriend, [Sargent], and she became pregnant. 18. Father admitted that T.W. calls his girlfriend "mean Jessica" and that T.W. told Father and T.W.'s psychologist that [Sargent] harmed T.W. as well. T.W.'s psychologist, Dr. Judith Anderson [(Dr. Anderson)], testified that T.W. is very afraid of [Sargent]. T.W. revealed to her that [Sargent] put a pillow over his face and held it there until he urinated in his pants. 19. Father testified that he does not believe his son's statements regarding [Sargent] harming him, but he does believe T.W.'s statements that Mother's boyfriend harmed him. Father testified that he believes that
5

T.W. obtained his fear of [Sargent] from [CPS] and Dr. Anderson. Father continues to blame others for his not being able to raise his child. 20. Father testified that [CPS] "has it in for [his] family" and that he cannot do anything to please [CPS]. He blames [CPS] for "taking away" his home and his job and killing his daughter. He places no blame or responsibility on his girlfriend because he does not see what she did as harmful. 21. Father testified that he "wholeheartedly" blames [CPS] for the death of his daughter because of the decision to remove her from life support. 22. Father testified that his plan for T.W. was for T.W. to live with him and his girlfriend. He also stated that he plans to marry his girlfriend, [Sargent]. Father stated that it would not be harmful for T.W. to live with [Sargent] despite T.W.'s fear of [her] because Father never saw [Sargent] harm T.W. 23. T.W.'s psychologist, Dr. Anderson[,] testified regarding her treatment of T.W. throughout the CHINS case, which included therapeutic visits with the Father. During the CHINS case, she recommended that the visits be stopped as they were harmful to T.W. Further, she testified that Father is not capable of providing a safe home for T.W. since he does not acknowledge that the presence of his girlfriend, [Sargent,] is a threat to T.W.'s safety. Dr. Anderson believes that the continuation of the parent-child relationship between Father and T.W. would be harmful to T.W. and that it would be in the best interests of T.W. to terminate the parental rights of Father and allow T.W. to be adopted. 24. Mary Jo Cuculic [(Cuculic)] was the family case manager for the [TCDCS]. She testified regarding the services that were provided to Father. Father failed to complete some of these services and was slow to complete other services. [] Cuculic stated in her [c]ourt [s]ummary on July 30, 2005, that although he had the opportunity to participate in services for months, it was not until his girlfriend became pregnant with his child that he began to participate in services on a more frequent basis. []. Despite the services provided for Father, [] Cuculic did not believe that Father could provide a safe and stable home for T.W. and that the reasons for T.W.'s removal from Father's care had not been remedied. She believed that termination of parental rights was in T.W.'s best interests.

6

25. CASA supports the TCDCS' petition to terminate Father's parental rights. [CASA] believes that it is in the best interests of T.W. to terminate Father's parental rights because Father's "presence and participation promotes a negative atmosphere" when T.W. needs stability. [] 26. [The court] finds that the child was removed from Father's care on September 16, 2004, and remains in foster care. The [c]ourt finds that reasonable efforts towards reunification were provided under [Ind. Code

Download Termination of the Parent-Child Rel. of T.M.W.W., Bradley Everett Wooten v. Tipp

Indiana Law